Teen shot and killed after entering wrong house

[Sleepy]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/teen-fatally-shot-mistakenly-walked-wrong-house-163650001.html

This is a sad story. A 16-year-old kid snuck out of his house to go to a party, got drunk, and when he tried to sneak back home, accidentally entered the wrong house and was fatally shot by the residents. I don't think the shooter will face any charges since homeowners are generally allowed to do this when they feel threatened, but it brings up a point that I'm rather curious about. What are these laws like in other countries? How much force is a resident allowed to use to stop an intruder? Is deadly force okay? Does the resident have any rights? It's always interesting to see how the US compares to others, given that our self-defense laws are sometimes criticized for being too liberal.

I don't know the details on such laws in the US (or how much they vary between states), but I'm assuming that residents are allowed to use deadly force under the appropriate circumstances, like when they fear for their safety. That can be a fine line though. We obviously don't know what the kid looked like when he entered the neighbor's house, but I think there's a difference between a stumbling, drunk teenager and a menacing criminal (of course, that's assuming the person is perfectly visible). I'm not really on one side or the other here, but I hate seeing needless deaths like this and wish there were an easier way to prevent them.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

Info on UK laws in this situation:

Householders and the use of force against intruders

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers

What is the purpose of this statement?

It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime.

Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events.

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.

What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?

In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:
An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and
If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.

It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.

From here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

[chitoryu12]

Regulations on castle doctrine (which mainly exists to protect homeowners from lawsuits or prosecution if they attack and wound or kill an intruder) vary across pretty much every state. This took place in Virginia, which rejected a castle doctrine bill in 2012. Ironically, the bill was blocked by a pro-guns group who wanted to keep using the common law protections already in existence.

In this case, whether or not he'll be prosecuted really comes down to how the investigators interpret the actions. Traditionally southern states like Virginia are typically more lenient about shooting an intruder who's not actually attacking you, but there's a lot of "what ifs". If the kid was ambushed and simply popped in the back of the head before he knew what was going on, there may be some hard questions for the shooter to answer in court. If the kid actually tried to surrender or flee, then it's very likely that the homeowner is getting put in jail. If it turned into a struggle and only ended in a fatal gunshot, then the owner will probably get off the hook.

[ThunderWulf]

Even if it was an accident in the name of self protection, still terribly sad to see.

[TheUnknown]

This post reminds me of the case where a Japanese exchange student was killed in the yard (not in the house, the yard) of a couple because, being only a temporary exchange student, didn't speak fluent English and couldn't understand that the couple who owned the house were telling him to stop and to not come closer.  He apparently got lost and was looking for help.

I once read somewhere that perhaps the problem isn't with guns, but the culture of the country itself, since there are supposedly countries with strict and lax gun laws that still have lower gun violence than the US.  For example, with the exchange student, I've heard multiple times that cities in Japan (or at least Tokyo) are much safer to wander around than cities in the US.  When an exchange student from Japan went to our school for a year, there was a day where she very nearly wandered away alone in Chicago during a class trip (luckily a classmate tracked her down before she could get far), and everyone flipped out over what could've happened. 

[chitoryu12]

This post reminds me of the case where a Japanese exchange student was killed in the yard (not in the house, the yard) of a couple because, being only a temporary exchange student, didn't speak fluent English and couldn't understand that the couple who owned the house were telling him to stop and to not come closer.  He apparently got lost and was looking for help.

I once read somewhere that perhaps the problem isn't with guns, but the culture of the country itself, since there are supposedly countries with strict and lax gun laws that still have lower gun violence than the US.  For example, with the exchange student, I've heard multiple times that cities in Japan (or at least Tokyo) are much safer to wander around than cities in the US.  When an exchange student from Japan went to our school for a year, there was a day where she very nearly wandered away alone in Chicago during a class trip (luckily a classmate tracked her down before she could get far), and everyone flipped out over what could've happened.

Well, that also depends on the city. NYC has a crime rate on par with Boise, and you're pretty much safe there if only due to the sheer level of activity on the streets at any hour as long as you don't wander down dark, deserted alleyways at 4:00 AM. Even then, most thugs are going to be snagging purses in Times Square and the subway from clueless tourists than lurking in deserted parts of town for someone to randomly wander by at the right moment.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Regulations on castle doctrine (which mainly exists to protect homeowners from lawsuits or prosecution if they attack and wound or kill an intruder) vary across pretty much every state. This took place in Virginia, which rejected a castle doctrine bill in 2012. Ironically, the bill was blocked by a pro-guns group who wanted to keep using the common law protections already in existence.

In this case, whether or not he'll be prosecuted really comes down to how the investigators interpret the actions. Traditionally southern states like Virginia are typically more lenient about shooting an intruder who's not actually attacking you, but there's a lot of "what ifs". If the kid was ambushed and simply popped in the back of the head before he knew what was going on, there may be some hard questions for the shooter to answer in court. If the kid actually tried to surrender or flee, then it's very likely that the homeowner is getting put in jail. If it turned into a struggle and only ended in a fatal gunshot, then the owner will probably get off the hook.

Definitely.  I really hope this isn't a case of a trigger-happy homeowner.

[Askold]

I think the point in Finnish law is that any force used in self defence must be proportional to the force/threat of the attacker. And even then there are disagreements about how the law should actually be interpreted.

For example: A couple is at their home when the girlfriend's (I don't think they'd gotten married yet) ex-man comes with a knife and starts to break his way through the front door, all the time shouting about how he is going to kill them. The guy in the house tries to reason with him and tells him to back down while the lady is calling the cops. Eventually the invader makes it inside and the guy grabs a decorational sword and keeps on giving out warnnings and retreating slowly. The invader comes at him untill the guy can no longer retreat and is forced to stab him once with the sword.

This was accepted as self defense, if anything had been different it propably would have been excessive use of force. a) they tried to block him from entering and he came with force. b) they tried to retreat c) they tried to verbally warn him and calm him down d) just one stab and once the attacker stopped attacking so did the defender.

Even then the police insisted that the defender should have been sentenced as well and the official police statement from the case said that if you are at your home and someone tries to enter the house and attack you, the only thing you are allowed to do is "close the door with determination and force."

Unless that means smashing the invader with a door, not much room for self defence.

But definitely no shooting at someone just because they are on your property.

[Sylvana]

South Africa has the most ridiculous self defense laws ever, and given the very high rate of violent crime in this country things can get unpleasant. In South Africa, you are only allowed to even wound the person who breaks into your house if they have already tried to harm you. Further, if the attacker say wounded someone, and then started retreating, it is again illegal to harm them.

The only time self defense is justified is basically after the attacker has shot at you and is preparing to shoot again. Also you will note I used the word harm in my previous description, that is because if you say take a baseball bat to an attacker and break his arm while subduing him, he gets full rights to charge you with assault even if you used the bat to protect yourself from the attacker and his weapon.

The only good thing that comes out of this is that the police in South Africa (the ones that are not corrupt rapists) have a good understanding of how things work on the ground, and have basically told people who have shot and killed an attacker to take the body into the middle of nowhere and leave it there, and the police will "officially" come back later. The police can generally see what has happened, and are aware that someone who was just trying to protect themselves will end up in prison if the law follows its normal course.

[chitoryu12]

The laws regarding using lethal force against an intruder are generally lenient here because of an understanding that someone who's gone so far as to invade your home may not have very good intentions for your well-being. Same with being threatened with a weapon: if someone has a gun drawn on you and you immediately pull your own weapon and pop him in the head before he can shoot, it'll likely be considered justifiable self-defense.

It becomes a different story depending on what happens during the fight, however. You can't attack someone who's retreating or surrendering, and you MUST stop when the person has been disabled. This doesn't mean not to dump your entire magazine into an attacker, but you stop shooting or stabbing or punching when he falls. If the guy's on the ground unconscious and you stomp on his head, that's battery. Shoot him, and you get a murder charge.

Another aspect is whether or not the attacker has a weapon. Again, there's more lenience if the guy is intruding in your home. But there's always a "match force for force" rule. If the person is unarmed, you can't shoot unless you reasonably believe that he's about to commit murder with his bare hands. I personally held a rifle on someone who was assaulting his girlfriend and their infant daughter, and it may have been justifiable to shoot to save the baby if he didn't stop when ordered because of her fragility. Though that's a very gray area. If the guy has a weapon, though, all bets are off: the moment you brandish a weapon or begin to draw one, you're free game to kill.

So let's say someone was to walk into my house through an unlocked door right now. If I gave him one warning while holding a weapon on him, he'd basically have no choice but to flee immediately. If he made any attempt to attack me, I could stab or shoot or bludgeon him in self-defense, but I'd need to stop as soon as he dropped. If he drew a gun on the ground or got back up and attacked, I could attack again.

Unfortunately, there's very little info on this case and there probably won't be any specifics for a long time. The investigators will need to examine the scene and the testimony of everyone involved (and alive) to try and piece together what happened.

[nickiknack]

It more or less seems accidental. I've read a couple things like there was an alarm that went off(even though if your drunk, chances are you really don't pay attention to that), also that friends left him off at the house thinking it was his, so.  Unfortunately I read the comments, and it seems that a lot these are saying it was 'bad parenting", or blaming it on the kid like partying is the worse thing ever. It makes me wonder, how many of these commenters probably sneaked out of the house or got drunk at a party during their teenage years. Now I'm not saying that sneaking out is a good idea, but given that is what people do, especially teenagers, it doesn't make them monsters for doing so, and it isn't bad parenting.  Not to mention this gem:

There should never be any guilt for the home owner. There would be no guilt with me. There would be some temporary sadness for the thug but never guilt. I would have been proud as hell that day that I was able to defend my family from potential harm even if the made up story said he simply was going home. Life experience tells me , especially of a black that he was nothing more than a thug, and he meant harm. The story by the lying Jew controlled media is simply another Trayvon cover up as usual for black perps.

[Sleepy]

Even then the police insisted that the defender should have been sentenced as well and the official police statement from the case said that if you are at your home and someone tries to enter the house and attack you, the only thing you are allowed to do is "close the door with determination and force."

This sounds ridiculous to me. If the man was threatening him with a weapon, the defender was left with two choices -- attack, or be attacked. Charging a man for protecting himself is just plain nonsensical.

The Finnish law as you described it sounds a bit too stacked against the resident, especially since there can be instances where the resident has no chance to reason with the attacker, and no way to get to another room and "close the door with determination and force."

[Scotsgit]

Info on UK laws in this situation:

Householders and the use of force against intruders

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers

What is the purpose of this statement?

It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime.

Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events.

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.

What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?

In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:
An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and
If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.

It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.

From here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

That's not the whole UK, just England and Wales.  Scotland has a seperate legal system, here if someone comes into your house without your consent, you must wait until they have put a foot in (this proves illegal entry), then you can knock the shite out of them.  Should they die during this, then you won't be prosecuted.  Equally, if they come into your house and you're standing there with a knife pointed in their direction, you again won't be prosecuted - in Scots Law, what you get up to in your own house is your business.  If somebody gets harmed by coming into your house without your consent while you're holding said knife, the Procurator Fiscal (like a DA) takes the point of view that it's their fault they were harmed, not yours.

[Askold]

Even then the police insisted that the defender should have been sentenced as well and the official police statement from the case said that if you are at your home and someone tries to enter the house and attack you, the only thing you are allowed to do is "close the door with determination and force."

This sounds ridiculous to me. If the man was threatening him with a weapon, the defender was left with two choices -- attack, or be attacked. Charging a man for protecting himself is just plain nonsensical.

The Finnish law as you described it sounds a bit too stacked against the resident, especially since there can be instances where the resident has no chance to reason with the attacker, and no way to get to another room and "close the door with determination and force."

Well like I said, the Finnish law as it was written says that the defender did everything right and showed restraint, even though the attacker nearly died because getting a sword stuck in your gut is very, very dangerous. Even if it was just a careful poke. The court also agreed on this.

The problem is that the police and the prosecutor do not agree with this and the the spokespoerson making the statement in particular did not seem to believe any kind of self defense is allowed.

I've heard anecdotal stories about how defending yourself (or God forbid defending someone else, for example seeing a rape in progress and interfering) can get penalties worse than what the criminal got.

[TheUnknown]

Even then the police insisted that the defender should have been sentenced as well and the official police statement from the case said that if you are at your home and someone tries to enter the house and attack you, the only thing you are allowed to do is "close the door with determination and force."

This sounds ridiculous to me. If the man was threatening him with a weapon, the defender was left with two choices -- attack, or be attacked. Charging a man for protecting himself is just plain nonsensical.

The Finnish law as you described it sounds a bit too stacked against the resident, especially since there can be instances where the resident has no chance to reason with the attacker, and no way to get to another room and "close the door with determination and force."

Well like I said, the Finnish law as it was written says that the defender did everything right and showed restraint, even though the attacker nearly died because getting a sword stuck in your gut is very, very dangerous. Even if it was just a careful poke. The court also agreed on this.

The problem is that the police and the prosecutor do not agree with this and the the spokespoerson making the statement in particular did not seem to believe any kind of self defense is allowed.

I've heard anecdotal stories about how defending yourself (or God forbid defending someone else, for example seeing a rape in progress and interfering) can get penalties worse than what the criminal got.

I never get why countries write up laws like this.  I'd guess it's to prevent cases like the OP and protect life in general, but it has such a huge potential to backfire so horribly that you have to wonder what the hell they were thinking when they wrote it.  It comes off like the country genuinely cares more for its criminals than it does innocent civilians, or that they're so dead set on everything going through official government channels that they've basically stripped people of their own right to self-preservation, which I view as probably the most basic right and instinct any living thing has.